From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 858D5A0583; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 13:18:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6653F94; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 13:18:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-il1-f170.google.com (mail-il1-f170.google.com [209.85.166.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17BAF90 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 13:18:35 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-il1-f170.google.com with SMTP id l14so5339796ilj.8 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 05:18:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0PeE8eGM3CaB7u4BpKDMPmYtYPzl0brjIxV6qs7Oqy8=; b=Wew8RtkSRcDw2D1dsTyhG2UnezKxf/mVWhRXis2/Y4ITHbDF8r2n3sVAaXVYXWb6as wHszWB69vkxSxvCPszXEKn0M8od4Usb/T2ojMEAsG+KWkuiFMYzGkssPshh7y7zyKk37 B9mfG6a1GQ1bpPUv7up1FxeHq8K7FiBTRMrHbaVUd2Ql30njIIlez9Cn0e3zHsq5iIiz 9g8TxDYUo75P7aJKt8kgOsakzeSWyuhiYlb0tNNInU5/KIXX82uPKqoHmhJYAsh3RmCB Rowzaxs4hw1gH6IRK6v3EavFwVg4KMqd07myK9d39rVrsC7WosqDGWj1f/EfA832F62A YbKQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0PeE8eGM3CaB7u4BpKDMPmYtYPzl0brjIxV6qs7Oqy8=; b=RDHe7zHRDUg75N6tHKisGvF4chJBRMWTe1wqx66jSfSdt1ICslNdOxEPREwLyTZvLC Gzd1fL3GOlbmXaEKO6+Ua0lTyvN+VqwZZmv0/yEmcaL1onc2tZqHoZvgG7SyFxqpFTZm LCDFOD9WCNmAS5CIu6YkqTnLEPTfnXvWsQ0eaMRBdeaOo9a8tROHFb4Kskwxt7VTs4Xq LtL67VaXUp78lxeev4RQBigHIMwSW4ZQ5Z5CIm7e6ydaTgfCtqUnBJbgTKqwyYPLHeg3 TTRcfEP9qY0/zzmuQNn6PeOexSvVsKC19KqLrCSSgkHnM9X4aD8RArIf6eNKCHJbOBD5 3wiA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2yoeQQUOnSqpRuFcI/wzMeML8U0ZK/qYqtzimm0OMrNK2h5xfP QM2DTeyhqLOsM0FrGwSKk9BurObXBeTgUaEtrx4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuuBRK01byeRBcxwpVLEj+tcuJP4BnIseBWxWNu/gAYrNOF5BveGvl8FO3acfZ2mHh2fqnKQgIGzOtaLcrwDZ4= X-Received: by 2002:a92:48cb:: with SMTP id j72mr7898067ilg.162.1584706715054; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 05:18:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1584452772-31147-1-git-send-email-wisamm@mellanox.com> <2710919.e9J7NaK4W3@xps> In-Reply-To: <2710919.e9J7NaK4W3@xps> From: Jerin Jacob Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 17:48:18 +0530 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Wisam Jaddo , dpdk-dev , Matan Azrad , Raslan Darawsheh Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] app/test-flow-perf: add rte_flow perf app X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 5:21 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 20/03/2020 07:49, Jerin Jacob: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 7:16 PM Wisam Jaddo wrote: > > > > Thanks for this application. Useful stuff. > > > > > > > > Introducing new application for rte_flow performance > > > testing. The application provide the ability to test > > > insertion rate of specific rte_flow rule, by stressing > > > it to the NIC, and calculate the insertion rate. > > > > > > It also provides packet per second measurements > > > after the insertion operation is done. > > > > > > The application offers some options in the command > > > line, to configure which rule to apply. > > > > > > After that the application will start producing rules > > > with same pattern but increasing the outer IP source > > > address by 1 each time, thus it will give different > > > flow each time, and all other items will have open masks. > > > > > > The current design have single core insertion rate. > > > In the future we may have a multi core insertion rate > > > measurement support in the app. > > > > If I understand correctly, > > # On the main thread, this application first check the flow insertion > > performance > > # and then start the worker thread for packet forwarding. > > Why this application testing the packet forwarding?, We already have > > testpmd for that. > > I think it is interesting to measure forwarding performance > when million of flow rules are in effect. The rules are applied to the HW CAM, Right? Do you see any performance difference? > > > IMO, This application needs to focus only on > > - Insertion performance > > - Deletion performance > > - IMO, it is better to add a framework for the profile where the first > > version of this application can > > define common a set of ITEMS and set of ACTION and later others can extend it. > > And the framework can run over all the profiles and spit out the > > insertion and deletion > > performance. > > What do you call a profile? Is it a set of rules? set of rules and/or actions. > I think this first version is proposing rules customization with parameters. Just that it better to have a framework where one can easily add new profiles and test various combos. IMO, Cascade rules take more insertion time. > Note: I prefer a non-interactive application for performance testing. Me too. Command-line is fine. > > > > The app supports single and multi core performance > > > measurements. > > >